|
|
|
|
|
February 17th, 2004, 03:42 PM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 64
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
Any news on this issue? I couldn't try it myself yet.
It seems like the mentioned compiler patches might include a fix for the bug described in http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...=000872#000014
[ February 17, 2004, 13:43: Message edited by: BugRoger ]
|
February 17th, 2004, 09:22 PM
|
|
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 8,806
Thanks: 54
Thanked 33 Times in 31 Posts
|
|
Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
Not sure, except I looked at my battles run in 2.06 after I upgraded to 2.08 (on Windows Version), and I didn't notice any changes in what I remembered happening. Not very scientific, but it's not obviously messed up.
PvK
|
February 17th, 2004, 09:45 PM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,463
Thanks: 25
Thanked 92 Times in 43 Posts
|
|
Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
We havn't found the bug, so unless it was hidden in some other fixed feature it is not solved.
The good news is that we have added a new checksum instrument that hopefully will give us some clues regarding the bug if we come across a faulty battle replay.
|
February 17th, 2004, 11:45 PM
|
|
Brigadier General
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mictlan
Posts: 1,767
Thanks: 12
Thanked 165 Times in 22 Posts
|
|
Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
If we are lucky bug rogers is right here and the microsoft compiler bugs caused most of battle replay bugs. Even if there's something more wrong it should at least be better now.
|
February 18th, 2004, 01:11 AM
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 762
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
Quote:
Originally posted by Johan K:
If we are lucky bug rogers is right here and the microsoft compiler bugs caused most of battle replay bugs. Even if there's something more wrong it should at least be better now.
|
In particular, if you were optimizing for speed.
And if you use MSVC6 (or 5), complier patches [surprisingly] don't include STL patches which you can get from http://www.dinkumware.com/vc_fixes.html
|
February 25th, 2004, 07:33 PM
|
|
Brigadier General
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mictlan
Posts: 1,767
Thanks: 12
Thanked 165 Times in 22 Posts
|
|
Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
Some good new for those who don't play Dominions on Windows exclusively. The problem with incompatible battle replays has been found. There was a disagrement on how to compile an expression between microsoft's and the others' compilers.
Magic resistance check:
if (penetration+2d6 < MR+2d6)
Other compiler solved it from left to right, but microsoft's solved it from right to left. This results in the same roll of dice appearing on different sides of the '<' for windows and linux.
Bloody annoying!
Alexti: Thanks for the STL info and I use MSVC6.
[ February 25, 2004, 17:35: Message edited by: Johan K ]
|
February 25th, 2004, 07:45 PM
|
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Crystal Tokyo
Posts: 2,453
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
Yay! Not only was the problem solved, but also, Microsoft gets another black mark
|
February 25th, 2004, 07:47 PM
|
|
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 794
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
Quote:
Originally posted by Johan K:
Some good new for those who don't play Dominions on Windows exclusively. The problem with incompatible battle replays has been found. There was a disagrement on how to compile an expression between microsoft's and the others' compilers.
Magic resistance check:
if (penetration+2d6 < MR+2d6)
Other compiler solved it from left to right, but microsoft's solved it from right to left. This results in the same roll of dice appearing on different sides of the '<' for windows and linux.
Bloody annoying!
Alexti: Thanks for the STL info and I use MSVC6.
|
Hmm... it's been some time since I had a look at books where the norm is described, but I'm not sure it says anything for this. I believe the result is "unspecified"...
Don't use two function calls in the same expression, is the lesson.
(And congrats on the Illwinter crew! When are we getting a patch so we can celebrate?)
|
February 25th, 2004, 07:49 PM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 332
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
__________________
I agree with the realistic Irishman who said he preferred to prophesy *after* the event.
-- G.K. Chesterton
|
February 25th, 2004, 07:54 PM
|
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Crystal Tokyo
Posts: 2,453
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: 2.08 and Incompatible Battle Reports
Quote:
Originally posted by PhilD:
Don't use two function calls in the same expression, is the lesson.
|
Compliers do strange things. A poorly-written compiler could rearrange consecutive lines if there is no obvious dependancy.
1: a=2d6+penetration
2: b=2d6+mrst
3: if(a>b){do c}
Lines 1 & 2 could be rearranged by a compiler if, for example, mrst is more local (already in a register) and penetration has to be fetched. That would have the same effect. I think C has some commands that let you force the complier to not rearrange things, though.
So the moral is actually not to trust Microsoft products, since they take away your control
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|